Eventually, I came up with one of my traditional theories (this meaning it was intriguing, technically true, and useless to just about everyone). My theory is simple – we encourage people to become better at talking through the very way we describe conversation (let's talk, I talked with Joe, etc). In fact, I can’t remember a single instance of a time someone went to have a conversation without first describing it as ‘going to talk with’ the conversation partner.
Is this just a case of an empty phrase being used solely to describe what is going on in a way we all can understand? On one level, of course that’s what this is. But I think the word also primes (1) us to think about what is coming next – by saying ‘talk with’, we set an expectation that we are indeed going to talk, talk, talk with occasional breaks to catch our breath (or, as some weirdos call it, ‘listen’).
I wonder what would change if we instead called it ‘listen with’ – sorry guys, but I have to go listen with my friend X. Would this lead to better listening? I can’t say for sure it would, but it definitely wouldn’t lead to people talking more, right? So how could it hurt?
I bet talking/listening isn’t the only activity that might change with a slightly altered phrasing or wording. Reader, the next time you are struggling to break a bad habit, try this thought exercise: would referring to the same activity by a different name change the behavior? Some possible ideas I have:
-If you struggle to buy only healthy food at the grocery store, call it ‘going to buy vegetables’ instead of ‘going grocery shopping’
-If you struggle to get off the couch once you start watching TV, call it ‘going to watch the specific TV show ___ for ___ minutes’ instead of ‘going to watch TV’
-If you never feel like going to work out, call it ‘doing what I can today to prevent a heart attack tomorrow’ rather than ‘going to the gym’Let me know if you have any success, reader – I’m ready to listen with anyone who has feedback to share.
Until then, I’ll be watching TV.
Thanks for reading,
Tim
Footnotes / an academic citation?
1. Priming…
I’m using ‘prime’ here in the sense I occasionally come across in an academic context. This use of ‘prime’ means that encountering something changes the way we think about something else. I think a well-known version is a subset of priming known as ‘anchoring’ and it refers to how recent exposures to a number influences a person’s perceptions about unrelated numbers. A good example is sale psychology – a $100 item sells better if it is marked down 50% from an initial $200 list price than it would sell if it were simply priced at $100 all along.
